Fetch one Culver's restaurant's complete published flavor-of-the-day and soup schedule, usually about two months ahead. Use culvers_flavor for one date's flavor or culvers_store for restaurant details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Required. Restaurant slug from /culvers/directory. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful coverage context: the schedule is the 'complete published' set and extends 'usually about two months ahead', which tells the agent how far out data reaches. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the coverage window is the key behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The resource and its temporal scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence is devoted entirely to sibling disambiguation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is schema-documented. Purpose, alternatives, and data coverage window are all covered. What remains thin is any hint of output granularity or freshness, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented as 'Required. Restaurant slug from /culvers/directory.' The description only implies the slug identifies 'one Culver's restaurant' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and a precise resource: one restaurant's complete published flavor-of-the-day and soup schedule. It also disambiguates from siblings by naming culvers_flavor and culvers_store, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for single-date flavors (culvers_flavor) and restaurant details (culvers_store), naming the alternatives with their conditions. It stops short of stating the positive trigger scenario (e.g., planning across many days), but the when-not guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
